obviously trying to distract us.
oh, and
i was still voting because as i said, i didnt think the wagon would go anywhere. and it hasnt. people have unvotedpete d wrote:ummm... you're still voting for Southpaw yourself...
if the use of FOS's getsSweenytodd wrote:I have to agree with Dodgy on this one, while promoting discussion at this point is what we need to do, liberal use of theFOSwould be my preference to willy-nilly bandwagonning, especially to put someone halfway to lynch before we have had any kind of discussion at all seems reckless. Though I see him in no danger I am also going to remove my random voteUnvote: Superstring91until we have more discussion.
in this case, i'll say that i supported this particular wagon. it did no harm, got discussion rolling, and did some reaction fishing as well. overall, it was a good wagonpete d wrote:By not unvoting, in effect you are saying that you support the wagon that formed after your random vote. Just because your vote was random when you put it on, doesn't mean that it stays that way; It should be viewed the same as the other contributors to the wagon. Pretending otherwise is sneaky.thorgot wrote:My vote was random. Why is it suspicious that I didn't unvote him?
on page 2 day 1, L-3 is not dangerous at all. especially if scum is already on the wagon, and even if no scum is on the wagon. they will not risk giving themselves up.kilmenator wrote:My opinion about the whole vote thing. I agree that it is dangerous to put someone at lynch -3, but I also think it unlikely that they would be quick lynched, because I would bet that at least 1 scum are on the wagon already, and no scum is going to quick lynch that early on day 1.
to start discussion so that we would be able to watch reactions, and actually have something to go on. if we never started a wagon, or voted at all for that matter, the game would stall.Dodgy wrote:The Fonz wroteExactly my point, so why start a band wagon at this point?But we had nothing to go on at that point. Nothing.
Firstly, I think you are the one that is making a big thing of this. My comments were not over reacting at all, I was merely pointing out the obvious.Overreacting to harmless votes is just a classic scumtell. Classic.
i have to agree. i dont think pointing out scumtells is a great idea right now keep those ideas to yourself, and maybe analyze them later.Dodgy wrote:Quit it with your Scumtells and just play the game mate!
the only reason you think the 3 of us are scum is because we agree with each other and not you.Dodgy wrote:There is a VERY good chance that we have 3 Scum in this game and my guess is that you've all be outed in day 1.
I think the 3 scum are The Fonz, Dasquian and superstring91.
All 3 of you know that I'm not scum and thats why you are all going in for the kill and to get people onside.
If however you do manage this, please town, remember the mob!
As for your scumtells The Fonz, I hope for your sake you are scum because if by small chance that youre not, youre very bad at reading this game.
QFTDasquian wrote:I can empathise with the level of paranoia you're now exhibiting, and I would say that's actually a town-tell if anything, or a conscientious act.
If you're town, calm down, take a step back. The mafia arenotall going in for the kill, nor would it make much sense for us to do so if you were right about us, unless we were going for one of those "so obvious you have to discount it" mafia plays.
i half agree with this. i will wait to see more of your posts through the game to actually judge you on it though.The Fonz wrote:You're apparently a longtime vet, yet you're playing incredibly newbishly.
at least he is not saying "i have nothing to add" that was a major problem with N316. there was one player who refused to agree with anyone, and just said that his ideas had been posted already. we cant read peoples minds [as much as we may try] while i agree that more content is better, their ideas may have been legitimatly posted already.Sweenytodd wrote:do not help us find scum. I realize that everyone had times when they cannot participate as much, this I will not hold against you. The issue that I have is posting 2 sentences agreeing with an idea rather than providing content does nothing but keeping your name outside of the "lurker" discussion. Everyone needs to participate, and I realize it has been a couple days since my last contribution which is why I am attempting to do my part to contribute now that I have some time. Please, to facilitate discussion, feel free to pose any questions to me which you feel need answering. Please, if you haven't posted in a couple days take the time to provide us some content to continue evaluating that we can weed out the scum presence in this town.Thorgot wrote:I think the bandwagon was an excellent idea, in order to create some discussion about players. Which it did, including about myself.
Sorry I haven't been more active. I had lots of work this week, but I should be able to post more this week.
i agree 100% with this.kilmenator wrote:Isnt that what WIFOM bascially is? Doing things to throw others off and basically saying, if I were scum, I NEVER would have done that or been that obvious.Dodgy wrote:Thats very true most of the time Southpaw but when everyone starts to presume such a thing is when the dinamics of the game can change and scum can do the most obvious things and people just say, nah, thats far too obvious.
Thats the fun of the game, you never know who is telling the truth or not, not for sure anyway.
:wink:
I think this is why people need to lynch scummy people, because then people will aviod scummy behaviors as much as possible. Most of you know if you have played with me before, that I do not buy the too scummy to be scum argument.
And to the scum tells discussion, most experienced players will try to aviod those scum tells, I think people need to be veiwed according to how they play, most people will exhibit certain traits when they are a certain role. I am not saying that there are not scum tells, I am just saying most people try to aviod them at all costs.
i have to agree wit this [especially "wow, what the heck"] and just because people are new to the site doesnt mean they cant read into it.kilmenator wrote:What! A claim? With only 2 votes and no one else expressing much suspicions? Why dodgy would you claim, some of us can read into the posts and see what you are trying to say, just because the Fonz is attacking you does not mean that you should have claimed, it was a stupid place to claim, and are you being replaced? Is that what the last post comment was?
Umm... Wow, what the heck...
unvote:the random
i dont agree that it is "classic" scumtell, because our definition of scumtell needs to be constantly evolving, with our scum. so, i suppose it is classic. it is old. it may be true in newbie games, but probably not here.Eletriar wrote:That said, reading over, it seems to me that the most defensive player is The Fonz.The Fonz wrote:But we hadnothingto go on at that point. Nothing. Overreacting to harmless votes is just a classic scumtell. Classic. If everyone random votes, that doesn't elicit anything, then what are you basing your FOS on? Nothing, that's what.
i realize that it doesn't mean much if he's not here, but if he has been reading, and not posting, then it does.pete d wrote:Hrmmm... I'm a little suspicious of superstring trying to get something going on Gorckat (not that I'm not a bit suspicious of the non-contributors, gorckat, thorgot in particular); it just seems to me like you're pushing it a bit hard. I agree with Fonzy (although i think he may be missing out rule number whatever it is, you know, the one about not mentioning... um... who was it again? i dont know, i think we weren't supposed to mention somebody in the thread. anyhow.). It would be nice to hear from gorckat though [/euphemism]. I'm buying Fonzy as town at the moment.
not necesarilly. hammering draws attention, but in the end it is a good thingthorgot wrote:Isn't something that draws suspicion to a town player inherently anti-town?Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:Okay, I'm retracting Dodgy's claim.
Objectively, he probably claimed to help the scum nail the doctor at night.
I need a Vote Count.
Also, I found Dasquian's fourth vote quite pro-town. It's a move that helps the town yet draws suspicion.
its a typo of EBWOPEletriar wrote:Um, not to be annoying, but could you clarify what 'EBWODP' means? I've not heard that one before.The Fonz wrote:EBWODP: AH, he actually didn't delete that, it was in a post further up.
i agree with dasq that LAL is a good rule of thumb, but thats just it. itsThe Fonz wrote:I'm not buying that. You wrote:Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:I'm not going to comment at my role at this time. I see no convincing reason to claim, so I'm not going to give the scum any role information.
Now, I suppose you can say that that meant 'to out the real doctor' or 'to get himself/his replacement nightkilled' but I just can't see how a retraction of a genuine claim here helps the town. I'd be all for lynching CES right now, in the absence of a power role claim. If you are a power role other than doctor, please claim and request protection. If you are town, you're either setting yourself up for a NK, or possibly worse, the scum playing WIFOM with you until the cows come home.Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:Okay, I'm retracting Dodgy's claim.
Objectively, he probably claimed to help the scum nail the doctor at night.
i get the whole gut feeling thing, but do you have any reasoning why im suspicious?pete d wrote:I'm feeling a bit suspicious of superstring and fonzy. I know i said i bought Fonz as town before, but his recent behaviour has made me a bit more apprehensive of him. superstring seems overaggressive to me, its more of a gut feeling on my part, he seems a bit opportunistic to me. Eletrair and dom:inc both seem to be fence-sitting a bit (dom:inc hasn't commented for a while though).
EBWOPsuperstring91 wrote:i get the whole gut feeling thing, but do you have any reasoning why im suspicious?pete d wrote:I'm feeling a bit suspicious of superstring and fonzy. I know i said i bought Fonz as town before, but his recent behaviour has made me a bit more apprehensive of him. superstring seems overaggressive to me, its more of a gut feeling on my part, he seems a bit opportunistic to me. Eletrair and dom:inc both seem to be fence-sitting a bit (dom:inc hasn't commented for a while though).
i will be out of town tomorrow through sunday. i am caught up, and will catch up when i return.
first, of course it's not accurate in your opinion: YOU"RE BLOODY REPLACING HIM!MBL wrote:1) Superstring thinks Dodgy was scummy beyond belief, which is not accurate in my opinion. Superstring tacks on lurking reasons, which is an ok reason to vote, except that it no longer applies because I'm not lurking and because CES just abandoned a newbie game he's modding and therefore I don't think the lurking can be concluded to bear on his alignment in the least.
i understand your worries here, but i don't think scum would claim vanilla. they would claim a power role. discrediting the real power role, and playing the rest of the game in their position.Off the Mark wrote:I am vanilla town. When I posted earlier about my PM getting deleted, I totally forgot about the vanilla PM being posted in the initial mod post. This is why I was concerned that my claim would be indistinguishable from mafia, because I was concerned they would all claim vanilla town too.
well, of course.Pie_is_good wrote:For the record, guessing at what the scum will claim is probably the purest form of WIFOM.